alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report,
based on our evaluation; and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Linda H. SimmonsLinda H. SimmonsChief Financial Officerand Treasurer
Exhibit 99.4

Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer
of Zkid Network Company, (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge,  the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the Company for the period
ended March 31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the  financial  condition  and results of  operation  of the  Company.  A signed
original of this written statement  required by Section 906 has been provided to
the  registrant  and will be retained by it and furnished to the  Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated May 14, 2003.                                     /s/ Jon Darmstadter
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                                      Jon Darmstadter
----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | A | = | Number of shares of Common Stock deemed to be outstanding immediately prior to new issue (includes all outstanding shares of Common Stock, all outstanding shares of preferred stock on an as-converted basis, and all outstanding options, warrants and other securities convertible into or exchangeable for shares of Common Stock on an as-exercised basis; and does not include any convertible securities converting into this round of financing) |
|--------|---|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | B | = | Aggregate consideration received by the Company with respect to the new issue divided by CP1 |
|--------|---|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE CORPORATION |
|                                   |   |
| By:                                    |   | /s/ Craig Hutchison                                    |
| Name:                                  |   | Craig Hutchison                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| Title:                                 |   | Vice President and Assistant Treasurer                                                                                                                                                                                                |
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Capital Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gifford
A. Dieterle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


                                        /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                        -----------------------
                                        Gifford A. Dieterle
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        November 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03508]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 24-05]


Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment; Impact Products, 
LLC and Safety Zone, LLC, Complainants, v. Mediterranean Shipping 
Company, S.A., Respondent

Served: February 14, 2024.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by Impact Products, LLC and 
Safety Zone, LLC (the ``Complainants'') against Mediterranean Shipping 
Company, S.A. (the ``Respondent''). Complainants state that the 
Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 
41301 through 41309 and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an 
ocean common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has 
entered into a service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), 
with the Complainants.
    Complainant Impact Products, LLC is a corporation located in 
Toledo, Ohio. Complainant Safety Zone, LLC is a corporation located in 
Guilford, Connecticut. Complainants are shippers as this term is 
defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23).
    Complainants identify Respondent as a company existing under the 
laws of Switzerland with its headquarters located in Geneva, 
Switzerland and as a global ocean carrier.
    Complainants allege that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 
41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainants allege these violations 
arose from assessment of demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard 
storage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not 
just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of the 
Complainants and its agents and service providers, and from the acts or 
omissions of the Respondent that led to the assessment of these 
charges.
    An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 
25 days after the date of service.
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/24-05/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge 
shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.

David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03508 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
A g e nda

- P i o P i c o E ne r g y C ente r ( PP E C ) C a ll N o v e m be r 2, 2 01 1

1. R e p r e s en t at i v e m on i to rs f o r B a c k g r ound Con c e nt r a t i on s :

a. PM 2.5 b. NO 2

2. M eteo r o l og y Da ta

a. F i l l i ng i n m i ss i ng dat a

b.1 m i nute AS O S d ata an d AE R MINU T E

c

. S u r f a c e r oug h ne ss- p r o j e c t s i te a nd m et s tat i on

3. NO 2 A n a l y s i s

a. J u s t i f i c at i on f o r o z o n e an d NO 2 c on c e nt r at i on s u s e d i n 1

- h ou r a n a l y s i s

i n cl ud i ng f i l l i ng i n o f m i ss i ng da ta

b. J u s t i f i c at i on f o r u si ng P V MRM T i e r 3 no n r eg u l a t o r y

- de f au l t op t i o n

c

. J u s t i f i c at i o n f o r u s i ng NO 2 /N Ox r at i o s i n m ode l i ng a n a l y s i s

d. Co m p l ete t r a i l o f r e s u l t s i n c l u d i n g s p r ead s h eet s s h o w i n g h o w f i na l NO 2 1

- h ou r v a l ue f o r

c o m pa r i s on w i th s t a n d a r d wa s ob t a i n e d

3. PM 2.5 a. Co m p l ete t r a i l o f r e s u l t s i n c l u d i n g s p r ead s h eet s s h o w i n g h o w f i na l PM 2.5 v a l ue s f o r c o m pa r i s on

w i th s t an d a r d s w e r e ob t a i n e d

b. C l a ss II i n cr e m ent ana l y s i s

4. C l a ss I a r ea s w i t h i n 3 00 k m

- In cr e m ent ana l y s i s f o r NO 2 an n u a l a n d ne w PM 2.5.
#### PICADILLY CAFETERIA OF WACO, Inc., Appellant, v. Mrs. L. E. LEE et vir., Appellees.

No. 15139.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

March 30, 1956.

Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, and Royal H. Brin, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.

R. W. Shytles, Dallas, for appellees.

DIXON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege. Appellee Mrs. L. E. Lee, joined by her husband, brought suit in Dallas County against appellant Picadilly Cafeteria of Waco, Inc., for damages for personal injuries. Appellant sought to have the case transferred to McLennan County, where it maintains its principal office and place of business. Ap-pellees’ controverting plea alleged that venue properly lay in Dallas County under Art. 1995, subds. 9a and 23, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. The plea of privilege was overruled January 23, 1956. The appeal was filed in this Court January 31, 1956.

On March 2, 1956 • appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no actual controversy now exists, the said appellees having taken a non-suit in the trial court on February 29, 1956.

Appellant has filed an answer resisting the motion. The answer points out that the non-suit and dismissal in the trial court were entered without prejudice, hence there has been no final disposition or settlement of the controversy. Therefore, says appellant, it is entitled to a determination of the venue of the cause, and its appeal should not be dismissed, nor should the judgment of the trial court fixing venue in Dallas be left undisturbed as an adjudication of the venue issue.

We sustain the motion to dismiss the appeal. The trial court possessed authority to permit appellees to take a non-suit and to dismiss the cause of action. When it did so, the venue question presented in this appeal became moot. We have no *791authority to determine the venue of a nonexistent suit. McNeill v. Hubert, 119 Tex. 18, 23 S.W.2d 331 (opinion adopted 'by S. C.) ; Johnson v. Galloway, Tex.Civ.App., 277 S.W.2d 127.

However, appellate courts also have authority to enter orders without prejudice. Riggins v. Richards, 97 Tex. 526, 80 S.W. 524; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Mathis, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W. 2d 1184. Therefore our order dismissing the appeal will be without prejudice to appellant’s right again to file its plea of privilege should appellees refile their suit and the same venue issue arise; and without prejudice to the right of either party to appeal from an adverse order of the trial court acting on the plea of privilege.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
EXHIBIT 32





Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Entravision Communications Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: November 9, 2010/s/ WALTER F. ULLOAWalter F. UlloaChief Executive Officer


Date: November 9, 2010/s/ CHRISTOPHER T. YOUNGChristopher T. YoungChief Financial Officer
NPDES draft permit comments 

Bamber, Amy 

to: 

Jack Faulk, David Rise, Gray, Jim A. 

01/20/2010 01:02 PM 

Show Details 

Hello,

 

I hope that you all are having a fantastic time down in Dallas. Here are my 

comments on the draft proposal Jack sent out. Also, if there is a listening call-in 

line, please let me know. 

 

thanks, Amy

 

Amy Bamber

Montana Department of Agriculture

303 N. Roberts

Helena, MT 59620-0201

406-444-3676

abamber@mt.gov

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8052.htm 5/11/2010
#### Roy A. SCOTT et al., Appellants, v. Marshall P. GRAHAM et al., Appellees.

No. 12889.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 19, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1955.

*444Roy A. Scott, Corpus Christi, for appellants.

Ward & Brown, H. A. Carr, Corpus Christi, for appellees.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the 94th District Court of Nueces County, refusing appellant Roy A. Scott and others a temporary injunction against the County Treasurer of Nueces County and Marshall P. Graham, which would have had for its effect the prevention of the payment of $600 to Graham. It appears from the record that Graham was appointed Assistant District Attorney of Nueces County on December 13, 1954, by the then District Attorney, Hon. J. D. Todd. This appointment was approved by the Commissioners’ Court of Nueces County on December 20, 1954. It further appears that on January 1, 1955, when Hon. Sam Jones became District Attorney of Nueces County, he did not re-appoint Graham as Assistant District Attorney. On February 27, 1955, the Commissioners’ Court approved the claim by Graham for the sum of $600 for services rendered as Assistant District Attorney.

This order has not been set aside or appealed from and stands as res judicata of the matter. August A. Busch *&*Co. v. Caufield, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 244; 11 Tex.Jur. 568, § 40.

The Commissioners’ Court of Nu-eces County has jurisdiction to pass upon claims for compensation by Assistant District Attorneys of that County. Art. 3886, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. Whether or not' that court erred in approving this particular claim is a question that can be raised by appeal only.

On appeal from an order of the district court refusing to grant a temporary injunction the sole question is whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the temporary injunction. City of Farmersville v. Texas *&*Louisiana Power Co., Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 272, 24 Tex.Jur. p. 313, § 253.

There is no showing of an abuse of discretion here and the order refusing to grant the temporary injunction is affirmed.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01578

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01578\01578_Checklist_102610_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01578\01578_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01578\01578_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01578\01578_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01578\01578_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01578\01578_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01578\Certification Statement_01578.pdf Plant certification statement

01578\Supporting Documentation\01578_Big_Cajun_1_Aerial.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01578\Supporting Documentation\Big_Cajun_1_Water_Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00 043 -CR

Ro be r t A lan Yo ung , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR2008 -27 1 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

Appellan t ’s b ri ef was due May 14, 2009. The brie f has not bee n rec eived a nd appellant’ s appointed attorne y , J oseph Emilio Ga rcia I I I , did not respond to this Court’s notice that the brief is overdue. H is response wa s due to be filed June 8, 2009. The appea l is abate d. The trial court shall conduct a hear ing to de termin e whether appellant de sires t o prosec ute t his appea l and, if so, whether the attorney it appointed to represe nt
a pp e lla nt h a s a ba nd on e d the a

pp e a l. Te x. R. Ap p. P. 38 .8 (b )( 2) . T he c ourt sh a ll m ake a

pp ro pr iate fi nd ing s and

recomm end ati on s. I f n e c e ssa ry , th e c ourt

sh a ll a pp oint su bs tit ute c ouns e l w ho wi ll2

e ff e c tiv e ly re pr e se nt a

pp e lla nt i n th is c a

us e . Are c or d f

rom th is he ari ng , in c lud ingc op ie s o f a ll finding s and order s and a transcr iption of the court re porter’ s notes, shall be for war ded to the cle rk of this Court for filing as a suppleme ntal rec ord no later than August 17, 2009. Rule 38.8(b)(3).

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Abated Filed: Jul y

15, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
1

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60238

Warnock Engineering, L.L.C.;

Rudolph M. Warnock, Jr., 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Canton Municipal Utilities, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC 3:17-CV-160

Before Jones, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The court has carefully reviewed the briefs, district court opinions and 

pertinent portions of the record in light of the parties’ oral arguments.

Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law. The judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60238 Document: 00515700274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2021
#### Dorothy DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29659.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 19, 1958.

C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge. •

• The offense is theft of property of the value of over $5 and under $50; the punishment, ninety days in jail.

The complaint and information alleged the theft of fifteen pairs of ladies hose, each of the value of seventy-five cents, from W. E. Sweeney.

Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence in her behalf.

W. E. Sweeney, assistant floor manager at a J. C. Penney Company Store in Houston, having custody and management of the hosiery department on the first floor, testified that he heard one of the ladies behind the hosiery counter call out, “Mr. Sweeney”, at which time he saw the appellant who was standing in front of such counter push some hosiery into a large shoulder strap type bag.

Mr. Sweeney further testified that he summoned Mr. White, the floor manager, *831and together they followed appellant down the aisle and stopped her at the elevator and took from her fifteen pairs of hose that were concealed in her hand bag, or shoulder bag.

Mr. Sweeney further testified without objection that the replacement cost or value of the hosiery was seventy-five cents a pair, and that the hose taken from appellant were hose of which he had custody and control; that he did not give appellant his consent or permission to take the hose.

The hose were not wrapped and the evidence shows that no sales ticket was found.

Floor Manager Garland White’s testimony corroborated that of Mr. Sweeney.

 We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and overrule the contention that the corpus delicti was not established.

The judgment is affirmed.